on 1/17/02 11:59 AM, "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean by manage the manifest? Jar and the <jar> tasks do this > quite nicely. Developer's manage the versioning whether it be in the name of > the jar or the manifest. If you can get the version number of a jar out of a manifest file in one command and not having to write any software to do it, then I will buy you a beer next time you are out here. I would want something like: jar -version foo.jar There is a big difference between hiding the version number in the manifest and naming the .jar file appropriately. I think you are also forgetting what I said earlier...torque-3.0-dev.jar isn't a real version number because it doesn't mean anything right now. >> The date isn't enough. It would need to include a build number. I have made >> several changes to a .jar file on a single date. > > For nightly builds a procedure like what Cactus does can be done, if the > regression tests pass (which we are starting to get) then a minor release > can be done. > > I don�t follow the "made several changes in a day" thing. If you make 10 > changes and they are all backward compatible then what does way you handle > versioning matter. Not all changes are backwards compatible. >>> And right now the auto jar uploader works with timestamps >>> so if we change torque, and upload a new jar to the repository then it will >>> come down the next time people try to update. >> >> Torque is under development. What if there is a non-backward compatible >> change? > > I don't see what this has to do with whether the versioning was in the name > of the jar or in the manifest? If the build system can distinguish version > by the name or by a manifest don't you have a problem either way. It isn't just the build system that should be able to distinguish version numbers. People should be able to do it as well. > I'm not saying the manifest is the grand solution but I don't just want to > rule it out completely. I've never had a big problem with version numbers > but I've never really had problem with the versioning being in the manifest, > and in most cases its easier just to drop in the new jar when it doesn't > have the version name in it. I'm just playing devil's advocate. No, you aren't playing devil's advocate. You are telling me your personal experiences and closing your eyes to others. > Right now where we are using a single directory and explicit naming in our > build files things work. But a lib.repo might be easier to navigate if it > were separated by product much like CPAN. I know you like versions in the > names of the JARs but please don't be too hasty in dismissing possible > solutions. I think the goals are safety and ease of use, if the details are > transparent to users and developers does it really matter where the > versioning occurs? Yes. It matters to me. That is what I'm saying. Please listen. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
